Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1% rule

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: 1% rule

#71

Post by dang »

dwd wrote: post #69
dang wrote: post #23

I once ran the numbers for HN and was surprised at how closely they matched this rule. Maybe I'll do it again. Edit: here are some estimates. We don't track enough to know about distinct users, so all we can do is guess. The number of accounts that have posted to HN this year, divided by the number of IP addresses that have accessed HN, is 0.008. How close that is to the '1% rule' depends on which is the bigger facto…

Given the demographics, is the 0.8% likely due to HN posters/readers being more at the introverted end of spectrum so slightly less inclined to engage?

Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they have more IP addresses.

Re: 1% rule

#72

Post by c3534l »

dwd wrote: post #69
dang wrote: post #23

I once ran the numbers for HN and was surprised at how closely they matched this rule. Maybe I'll do it again. Edit: here are some estimates. We don't track enough to know about distinct users, so all we can do is guess. The number of accounts that have posted to HN this year, divided by the number of IP addresses that have accessed HN, is 0.008. How close that is to the '1% rule' depends on which is the bigger facto…

Given the demographics, is the 0.8% likely due to HN posters/readers being more at the introverted end of spectrum so slightly less inclined to engage?

I'm not sure that's a good assumption. Introverted users may be more likely to participate in online discussions since they prefer it over in-person conversations.

Re: 1% rule

#73

Post by [deleted] »

perilunar wrote: post #54

1% sounds bad, but compared to pre-internet days it's pretty good. Consider a large city newspaper: probably hundreds of journalists and letter writers, but millions of readers, so much less than 1%.

[deleted]

Re: 1% rule

#74

Post by EGreg »

rzzzt wrote: post #27
ecdavis wrote: post #2

On top of that, some percentage of users who do contribute content are just recycling/reiterating content they've seen have success in that community before. Reposts, memes, predictable opinions, etc. The number of people who actively create the culture of an online community (and, I suspect, offline communities) is pretty small.

Where does the novelty element start, though? Someone could come and argue that your comment is also predictable, as is my reply below it.

Let me share an original thought I just came up with. As Paul Graham recently wrote, you can be an accidental moderate because you disagree with people out of intellectual honesty and critically analyzing the positions in an effort to learn something. So people like that contribute to steering conversations towards the truth.

(PS: Yes, what I wrote above was ironic on purpose.)

Re: 1% rule

#76

Post by brewdad »

H8crilA wrote: post #48
nixpulvis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is all that thinking really worth it? I mean surely you don't want to say too much bullshit, or mislead people... But take this comment; would I really post it if I thought it would waste the time of some hundreds of people reading it? Also... then there's the problem of feedback, which is how you make progress in a conversation... but I fear I begin to digress.

I wish downvotes had a text field feedback option. I often downvote comments for reasons that may not be obvious to the author. That could be ripe for abusive messages, but still think it's a noteworthy idea.

The old Slashdot moderation system had a variant of this. You could assigns comment score and a reason for that score. It worked pretty well until users inevitably learned how to abuse it.

Re: 1% rule

#77

Post by egfx »

yingw787 wrote: post #21
cycloptic wrote: post #5

I hope many of us internalized this early. It's not very accurate, but I try to think of this as meaning that on average, everything I post online is being read by a minimum of 99 people, multiplied by either the upvote count on the thread (for HN) or the number of active followers I have (for Twitter). It has helped me to always think this to myself before posting something. I probably am biased from the culture on…

That's why I left Quora. I'm a really gullible person, and I was going to respond to somebody who posted something inflammatory, then I realized I had the option to just walk away. So I did. I remember something similar about companies too. When you have product market fit, customers will sear you when your product doesn't work. If you don't, you'll never hear from them again.

If you don’t what?

Re: 1% rule

#78

Post by KineticLensman »

egfx wrote: post #77
yingw787 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I left Quora. I'm a really gullible person, and I was going to respond to somebody who posted something inflammatory, then I realized I had the option to just walk away. So I did. I remember something similar about companies too. When you have product market fit, customers will sear you when your product doesn't work. If you don't, you'll never hear from them again.

If you don’t what?

If you don't have product market fit

Re: 1% rule

#79

Post by DelightOne »

brewdad wrote: post #76
H8crilA wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish downvotes had a text field feedback option. I often downvote comments for reasons that may not be obvious to the author. That could be ripe for abusive messages, but still think it's a noteworthy idea.

The old Slashdot moderation system had a variant of this. You could assigns comment score and a reason for that score. It worked pretty well until users inevitably learned how to abuse it.

I don't know the problems there, but would the following avoid the abuse?

Only accept pre-defined labels everyone agreed on + references to existing answers?

Alternatively only allow a refutation format which is simple to validate.

And make it clear that votes are only a show of sentiment since this is not a democracy we are talking about.

Re: 1% rule

#80

Post by smichel17 »

egfx wrote: post #77
yingw787 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I left Quora. I'm a really gullible person, and I was going to respond to somebody who posted something inflammatory, then I realized I had the option to just walk away. So I did. I remember something similar about companies too. When you have product market fit, customers will sear you when your product doesn't work. If you don't, you'll never hear from them again.

If you don’t what?

Have a product-market fit
Post reply on HN